Movie News

Friday, October 10, 2014

Whether a direct adaptation of Bram Stoker’s classic novel, F.W.
Murnau’s not-so-sly variation (or Werner Herzog’s remake of that
variation), Béla Lugosi or Christopher Lee’s legendary turns, Mel
Brooks’ spoof, or horror legend Dario Argento’s recent 3-D disaster, the
story of Dracula
has been told countless times throughout cinema history. More often
than not (probably?), that story has found an origin in the legendary
real life figure of Vlad the Impaler, a fascinating character regardless of who is telling the story.

This bad ass

So when Universal Pictures decided to reboot their legendary horror
movie monsters (Dracula, Wolf Man, The Mummy, etc.), they chose none
other than the immortal vampire, the most famous and resilient of the
motley crew, to kick things off. With that, Universal promised a new
take on the classic Vlad-becomes-Dracula story with Dracula Untold, the dreaded “dark re-imagining” that Hollywood (and apparently movie-going audiences everywhere are obsessed with these days).

Well, it may be a new take on the Vlad the Impaler legend, but in the
end, it is just another “origin story” variation that audiences have
seen countless time before. Given the fascinating and real-life
terrorizing figure it is based on, it is incredibly disappointing just
how lifeless the film really is. And not in a good undead vampire way,
but rather, in a boring and uninspired way – one that is filled with
clichés and completely devoid of any real scares.

Vlad, it turns, out according to the movie, is not the bloodthirsty
bad guy history and folklore has made him out to be. He is just a
conflicted father, husband, and leader who is backed into a corner and
does something desperate to save all those he cares about. This is the
main fault of Dracula Untold. It took one of the most legendary and fearsome figures ever, real and imagined, and castrated him.

It should be no surprise that Dracula Untold takes on the
modern Hollywood blockbuster approach of picking and choosing what it
copies from other similar and successful films. It borrows liberally
from other horror-action films like the Underworld series, while attempting to duplicate the stylish and exaggerated action of 300.

And speaking of those action scenes, the film’s battle scenes are
almost impossible to watch, literally. They are heightened hectic to the
point of incomprehension. Every movement is like a blur and shot with
unnecessary close-ups and obscured angles. There is one part where the
audience is forced to watch the end of fight scene through the
reflection of a sword. It just doesn’t work. And while some of the
special effects are really well done (Vlad morphing into and out of a
swarm of bats especially), the action that surrounds it all is sorely
lacking.

The latest to take on the role of Dracula is British actor, Luke Evans,
who you may know as the slightly broodier Orlando Bloom. He is fine in
the role, but really lacks that spark needed for Dracula. He certainly
does not have to possess all the traits we have come to expect from the
Prince of Darkness – frightening, mysterious, sly, and seductive – but
he does have to be something. Unfortunately, he is as lifeless as the rest of the movie.

On the other hand, Games of Thrones alum Charles Dance
does possess many of those previously mentioned traits in a
scene-stealing, all-too-brief role as the original vampire. But the less
that is said about Dominic Cooper’s Ottoman antagonist the better.

Taking on a legendary character from a new perspective is a difficult
and daunting task. But removing everything that makes that character
legendary in the first place is not the way to do it. Replacing it with
the safe, but increasingly worn out gritty reboot/over-stylized action
of the modern studio tentpole makes it even worse.